Despite the 6.5% stock market rally over the last three months, a handful of billionaires are quietly dumping their American stocks . . . and fast.

Warren Buffett, who has been a cheerleader for U.S. stocks for quite some time, is dumping shares at an alarming rate. He recently complained of “disappointing performance” in dyed-in-the-wool American companies like Johnson & Johnson, Procter & Gamble, and Kraft Foods.

In the latest filing for Buffett’s holding company Berkshire Hathaway, Buffett has been drastically reducing his exposure to stocks that depend on consumer purchasing habits. Berkshire sold roughly 19 million shares of Johnson & Johnson, and reduced his overall stake in “consumer product stocks” by 21%. Berkshire Hathaway also sold its entire stake in California-based computer parts supplier Intel.

With 70% of the U.S. economy dependent on consumer spending, Buffett’s apparent lack of faith in these companies’ future prospects is worrisome.

Unfortunately Buffett isn’t alone.

Fellow billionaire John Paulson, who made a fortune betting on the subprime mortgage meltdown, is clearing out of U.S. stocks too. During the second quarter of the year, Paulson’s hedge fund, Paulson & Co., dumped 14 million shares of JPMorgan Chase. The fund also dumped its entire position in discount retailer Family Dollar and consumer-goods maker Sara Lee.

Finally, billionaire George Soros recently sold nearly all of his bank stocks, including shares of JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, and Goldman Sachs. Between the three banks, Soros sold more than a million shares.

So why are these billionaires dumping their shares of U.S. companies?

__________________

Absolute evil DOES INDEED exist. It has existed from time immemorial and it is exceedingly well organized, interconnected and financed. That is what ZOG is all about!

Reports are showing that George Soros and John Paulson have been adding gold to their portfolios. Both billionaires are famous for their big, risky bets that often pay off — netting them not just thousands and millions, but actual billions in returns.

John Paulson has increased his exposure to gold 44%. He sold some of his gold stocks and picked up more of NovaGold Resources Inc and bought some of the gold ETF GLD.

George Soros, infamous for breaking the Bank of England years ago with a big bet, tripled his position in gold, bringing his stake up to over $133 million in the gold ETF..........

The peoples that drive the consumer based economy are being replaced, and they know that better then anyone. They saw this day coming a long time ago. It won't bother them as they reaped all the benefits of this traitorous scheme.

Let them choke on their gold and silver, because god knows they can't eat it.

The big inflation y'all are so worried about is a past-tense event. It already happened. We call it things like the Real Estate Bubble and Tech Stock Bubble, but a better name for it is the Great Asset Mania of 1982-2007. I suspect that future generations will refer to it in monolithic terms like that when they study it with the benefit of decades of hindsight and having lived through the ensuing aftermath.

Without getting into a 400-page dissertation on fiat monetary economics, the basic situation looks like this:

The amount of money in our economy is not the number of actual, physical dollars (of which there are something around $900 bn at last count, most of which are not circulating much). Nor is it reserves held by the Fed to back its lending facilities to member banks. Nor is it all the loans and mortgages those banks have issued, using those reserves at the Fed as collateral. Nor is it all that credit card and student loan debt floating around out there. The supply of money in our economy is all of those things and much, much more.

Anything that can be used as money (e.g. spent), or can be used to collateralize credit (which is the same thing as money when fractional reserve lending and maturity transformation are legal), IS money under the kind of system we have. This is a fundamental point, and both the conventional (Keynesian) and critical (Austrian) economists fail to fully grasp its importance in their analyses.

When a ****** gets an FHA-backed, Fair Lending Act subsidized, zero-down Option-ARM loan to buy a crack den, not only does that drive up the asset values of crack dens (because a rapidly expanding supply of credit dollars is chasing a limited supply of crack dens), those asset values are then collateralized back into more future credit, expanding the money supply. Not only that, but the credit (on the bank side) is collateralized as an asset itself via securitization into stuff like RMBS, and becomes the basis for even more credit activity. In the meantime, the rising asset value of the crack den (due to the credit inflation going on in the crack den market) allows the ****** to refinance or take out a HELOC, which yields windfall skrilla for the ****** to spend on hookers and blow or some 24" rims for his Pontiac. The additional credit or refinanced loan is then collateralized via securitization and the whole cycle starts over again. Add in additional asset classes as multipliers (such as CDS, derivative contracts, etc.), and you get a gigantic feedback loop of euphoric credit creation, spending, and asset inflation. That's also how we get things like ATM cards linked to brokerage accounts full of tech stock options (1998) or gas station clerks financing trips to Cancun and Ferrari leases via fourth-lien HELOCs on ****ty cardboard condos they bought as "investments" (2006).

In that sort of situation, nearly every single class of asset in the entire economy has been monetized via credit collateralization in a feedback loop. EVERYTHING. Not only that, but all capital investment in the economy shifts to a primary cash flow through monetizing asset appreciation rather than value creation. Dependence on asset appreciation for portfolio gains is the essence of speculation. Everyone turns into gamblers, living off of capital, no one cares about the actual viability of business models, and capital is heavily misallocated toward things that can provide big payoffs via levered asset appreciation. Rental or sales income become irrelevant. P/E ratios approach infinity. And people need a dictionary to understand what "dividends" are or why they might be important.

This was the situation going into 2007. We were at the tail end of a 25-year credit-fueled asset mania that had encompassed and monetized nearly everything in our economy, both at home and across the world. It was the biggest credit bubble in human history, and its inflationary impact was in the hundreds of trillions of dollars. Probably even into the quadrillions. Nobody really knows how big it got, and that's part of the problem. We'll come back to that in a moment. First, we need to look at why most Americans didn't directly experience that period as being as hugely inflationary as it was.

In conventional models, inflation is measured in consumer prices (CPI), commodity prices (PPI), interest rates, and labor prices (wages). In a typical inflationary period, we would expect to see all of those things rising or at high levels (LOL Zimbabwe). None of these measures showed anything like the kind of massive inflation during the period that I'm describing here. In fact, conventional measures were showing consistent disinflation during that entire period. Consumer prices were rising, but at modest levels for most staples while large productivity gains from technological and other advances were creating large downward pressure on the prices of many consumer items. Commodities were among the last asset classes to be carried into the collaterization craze, and for a variety of reasons remained low as the global manufacturing economy became much more efficient and productive. Gold nearly hit the price of production in 2000, near the peak of the tech stock mania, though it has since been fully absorbed into the last gasps of the asset mania. Gold really is money now, in a way, since it's been as securitized, speculated, and collateralized as nearly everything else. It just got a late start. (Note also that the exact same asset-credit dynamic I'm describing here is what killed the gold standard in the first place. It is not immune.)

Interest rates were declining during almost the entire period 1982 to 2007. Interest rates, of course, are the inverse measure of debt pricing. When bond prices are going up, interest rates are going down. This creates a particularly vicious dynamic for a building credit bubble. The expansion of credit creates lots of new spending capacity, some portion of which goes into "investing" in credit, which drives bond prices up and interest rates down. Lower interest rates allow for more borrowing. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

Normally, the risk of default and levered losses puts a heavy damper on this kind of thing. But when risk is shifted, hidden, or "removed," all prudence goes right out the window. With the government backstopping nearly everything via explicit or implicit guarantees, corrupt accounting rules, and increasingly complex and opaque securitization arrangements (by which, for instance, that ****** crack den loan described above would be wrapped up with a bunch of similar loans and then subdivided into "tranches" of value, some of which were rated AAA and sold at big premiums), all the natural risk regulation in the market went away. Financial behavior that would make Rothschild Jews blush in shame became normal business practice.

Finally, wages in the US have been stagnant or falling (in constant-dollar terms) since about 1970. Even in non-adjusted terms, wages have not been rising dramatically, even during the biggest years of the Asset Mania. If there was as much inflation as I assert there was, why not? We can see why interest rates would be falling as part of the dynamic of unrestrained credit expansion, and consumer/commodity prices would be stable or declining due to major productivity-enhancing changes in technology and heavy importation of cheap goods from foreign markets. But why weren't wages skyrocketing?

The answer to that is, essentially, international labor arbitrage. In 1970, Americans had a very high standard of living based on historically high wages. High wages, of course, mean high costs. More importantly, wage inflation leads to more directly traditional inflation throughout the economy, endangering the credit racket by destabilizing it via rising interest rates and rising consumer prices. Ideally (for the Powers that Be), we would have high credit inflation via financialization, combined with low interest rates (thus a low cost of borrowing), low wage and commodity costs to producers (thus high cash flow extraction and pricing power for businesses), and low consumer prices (to keep the masses complacent and buying as much stuff as they can).

Several specific circumstances allowed this exchange to be pulled off. First, there was a large wage disparity between the USA and most of the rest of the world going into the 1960s. Arbitraging this imbalance via offshoring and heavy immigration dramatically shifted labor pricing in our economy. At the same time, women entered the workforce in large numbers, further increasing the labor supply. This served to keep wages stable or declining even while the rest of the economy was going through a credit-fueled inflation binge. That was truly the worst possible situation for average Americans, but the new availablility of cheap credit allowed them to maintain and even increase their spending by borrowing from future earnings. Years of more conventional inflation in the 1970s had conditioned nearly the whole US population to take on as much debt as possible (a rational thing to do when inflation is bad in the more traditional sense), so that was easy-peasy to accomplish. Americans have always liked borrowing to pay for stuff. A big increase in cheap credit kept the masses happy even as they were being cut out of equitable participation in the mania.

The second major circumstance that allowed this to be pulled off was the status of the US Dollar as the global reserve currency. That not only creates a built-in structural demand for dollars all around the world, it also allowed us to export a large amount of our credit inflation overseas. We bought tons of **** from China and Japan and Germany using credit. They got access to a major export market so they could keep their people happily employed in massive over-production, in exchange for having metric ****tons of credit-inflation dollars rained down on them. We got lots of stuff imported for us to buy, which kept overall consumer prices low at the same time that we were able to cheaply borrow our way into being flush with cash. Everyone was euphoric, the Singularity was nigh, Star Trek-like infinite prosperity was within reach, Hootie and the Blowfish gained a happy-go-lucky musical career, and history ended.

Even if Obama loses the election, the US economy is in for a bleak future. Romney is too gutless to deport millions of illegal aliens, which should be the FIRST thing a US president should do in economic hard times. (Of course, we shouldn't have any illegal aliens in the US in the first place, but that's another issue.)

__________________

Luke 22:36 (Jesus speaking to his disciples said) "...if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one."

There isn't that much Gold for people to get into, if you only count real gold and not fictional paper nonsense. The amount of cash in stocks, funds and derivatives is so large that it has no place to go. If they really started selling off, and buying Gold, then the Gold price would explode and the Zionists would be screwed world wide.

Short interest on precious metals has been building up. Always go the opposite way to Souros. They could be building up for a raid on precious metals, which would sink prices fast.

Prices will rise in the long term. But ZOG wants to depress them with raiding so that people don't see the writing on the wall.

Don't fool with paper precious metals. There won't be a counter party to claim from when the SHTF. Buy physical. But buy on the dips.

There isn't that much Gold for people to get into, if you only count real gold and not fictional paper nonsense. The amount of cash in stocks, funds and derivatives is so large that it has no place to go. If they really started selling off, and buying Gold, then the Gold price would explode and the Zionists would be screwed world wide.

Short interest on precious metals has been building up. Always go the opposite way to Souros. They could be building up for a raid on precious metals, which would sink prices fast.

Prices will rise in the long term. But ZOG wants to depress them with raiding so that people don't see the writing on the wall.

Don't fool with paper precious metals. There won't be a counter party to claim from when the SHTF. Buy physical. But buy on the dips.

YES. Completely agree. Buying physical gold/silver is a solid investment. The US economy is permanently screwed. Printing more money isn't going to fix the economy. Creating money from nothing doesn't work. Hyperinflation will occur just as Ron Paul predicts.